OSNews

It won't bring anything to the end user other than the warm, cosy feeling that if MS goes out of business, all of your documents saved in the Office 12 format (OpenXML) will have documented specifications and someone would be able to create a document reader that will run on your computer. Someone could create a reader before then as well, but it wouldn't really be worth it since MS will supply one for the time being.

One of the biggest criticisms people have about MS file formats right now is that for the most part they haven't been documented by anyone outside of MS. What happens if you want to open a document ten, twenty, or thirty years from now? It is very unlikely that you'll have the same software installed, and if MS isn't around to sell you a document reader/writer, that could be quite difficult. It's already hard enough to open a document created five years ago with current software.

Edited 2005-11-22 00:26

Reading isn't enough

Besides that, the licensing issues are very problematic, at least in USA.

To me this is nothing but a PR-stunt.

Main critisisms of Microsoft is: Closed formats, or only open under closed licenses. You cannot legally create a GPL'ed reader for MS Office XML files. At least not in USA.

You may not be able to legally make a GPL'd reader in the US, but you are free to make a BSD licensed one.

If you can't handle freely implement a standard in any kind of software, whether proprietary or not, then it's not open.

It's only open if it's open for everyone.

More likely I think MS is going for the least possible openness they need to get customers like Massachusetts back, then they will most likely go back to closed formats after they believe their vendor lock-in position is strong again.

Not so much PR as an attempt to keep the OASIS format from getting a foothold somewhere.

And people will fall for it. When we say "you idiots, here's what they'll do.." they'll ignore us. Then when it happens (like IE) they'll look shocked.

Typical ignorant consumerism.

Well.. maybe if you didn't say "you idiots". You can tell people what you think will happen, and they can choose to believe it or not. Don't get upset if they don't agree. But instead, you chose to be insulting because people don't take your word for someone elses motives, intentions and end goal.

I'm not stupid, I'm well aware of the methods of sugar coating things so that it seems unoffensive and rosy.
I didn't think I needed to put on airs here, but maybe I do?

Anyway, I'm not really mad, just attempting to portray some emotion in the comment. People who read these comments sections are not the sort of people I'd consider ill-informed on this subject; and so I'd not refer to them as an "idiot" when it comes to this. And I think they're all aware I'm not talking about them in that comment, I'm talking about the other 99.9% of consumers.

Those 99.9%, the idiots, are the ones you are not trying to convince, not us. Just about everyone here probably has their mind made up, and if they do change it, it won't be because of anything said here.

Are some consumers idiots? Yes. Doesn't mean it's all peachy keen for you to go around calling them all idiots because they aren't in line with your thinking.

I was very definite that I'm calling them idiots because they're uninformed.
It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. Did you notice how I said people reading this aren't idiots, because they're getting informed. I bet more than half of them disagree with me..

Don't put words in my mouth.

Uninformed is quite different from idiots. Please make up your mind on which you mean.

On the one hand you're right, calling people idiots where they can hear (or read) it usually turns them away from listening to you; although, on the other hand I share in ma_d's frustration. You can warn people about something bad for years on end, the majority will still stick to what provides the path of least resistance until, like lemmings, they follow it over a cliff, or in this case into servitude to Microsoft.

It's easy to make predictions.

When it doesn't come true, no one remembers. No one cares. It's all forgotten.

When it does, the ones who doubted it have it rubbed in there face by those who predicted it. "SEE I TOLD YOU!!!"

Of course if you make predictions, you're bound to be right sometimes.

I do understand frustration. I feel the same frustration in other areas, such as politics for one. But frustration and insults do nothing.

MS' intentions are clearly documented in mails from MS.

PR-trick?
The same PR-trick as OASIS is using for OpenDocument?
Gee...

Is the tinfoil hat comfortable?

Well, the difference is of course that the OpenDocument standard is there because the people behind it wants an open format.
Microsoft is doing it because they're afraid to lose the EU and MA. If they wanted an open format, why have they waited until now?

Having said that: When the office format is an open standard that anyone can use for free, (even GPL licensed applications) I'll be cheering too.

Who cares why they waited until now? What counts is that they're doing something.

I could apply the same question to any number of open/closed-source projects.

Microsoft + Open Document Format = Zealots("Boo! Boo! PR Stunt!")

This silly voting stuff didn't let me mod you down, but still, who was talking about Microsoft+ODF ?! Nobody. They want to standardise their own way, so ODF doesn't get any foothold. Gee.

I didn't mean ODF itself, I meant *an* open document format.

Microsoft IS NOT going with OpenDocument, you bonghead.

Microsoft is trying to establish Office XML as another standard to kill OpenDocument.

Read this:

Office XML != OpenDocumentFormat

Following is what you should've written:

OASIS + Open Document Format = Pure XML. Open standard, free for everyone to use, including Microsoft.

Microsoft + Office XML = Garbled XML. Closed standard. Openly documented, but only allowed to be used by MS-certified persons/companies.

Again, I didn't mean ODF itself, I meant *an* open document format.

By the way, where does it say that someone can't write a Microsoft "ODF" parser? Why the predetermined opinions about how it will work/look? Don't be such a closed-minded fanboy.

One can, but under severe restrictions atm.

We'll see what really happens. So far the MS doublespeak leaves the impression that not all will have a choice.

What trick would that be, would you care to explain?

Maybe if you look at the first post in this thread you will understand.
I can see that others ("Linux Is Poo") have understood it perfectly fine already.

There is no PR-trick about OASIS and ODF.

Office XML isn't OpenDocument.

"Linux Is Poo" suffers from too much poo in his brain, when he claims that ODF and Office XML is equal.

They are not.

These formats are clearly different and only ODF is open.

ODF is technically superior, since Office XML isn't XML. It's blended with garbage, and the garbage needs to be read, and that's where the license kicks in.

Linix Is Poo never claimed MS was using ODF. He used the term Open Document Format in either case to refer to just that, an open document format, not the OASIS standard. He probably shouldn't have capitalized, but it's obvious from the context.

No it wasn't.

He claimed ODF == Office XML, and that is not true. Office XML isn't open nor is it true XML.

He did not claim this unless his post was either deleted or it was in another thread. The only post from him in this thread contains the text:

OASIS + Open Document Format = Zealots("Awesome! Let's all masturbate!")
Microsoft + Open Document Format = Zealots("Boo! Boo! PR Stunt!")

In that post he was referring to the first and other posters in this thread who stated that MS' submitting Office Open XML formats to ECMA/ISO was a PR stunt. He doesn't even use "OpenDocument" or "ODF", rather he uses "Open Document" to refer to each respective format as what they are -- open document formats. His only mistake was capitalizing the first letter of each term thus causing confusion among posters. It's no different than some of the ODF posters here sometimes abbrieviating OpenDocument Format as OpenDoc, not realizing this can make people think of a different standard even though, as in the case with Linux Is Poo, it's usually clear from the topic of the forum and the context of the post what they mean.

Saying that he said ODF == Office XML is putting words in his mouth. And saying Office XML is neither open nor XML is factually incorrect.

Isn't it interesting that Eugenia and the rest of the "editor" here seems to be the *ONLY* ones naive enough to take Microsoft Press Releases as serious "News"?

Of course Eugenia could make the summary go like this:

"Microsoft wants to submit file formats for its new Office 12 applications to the European standards body ECMA International. The company hopes it could use this PR stunt to fool their customers into believing Microsoft supports the 'Industry Standard' open formats, while they plan on doing the opposite. Thus marks the sign of a new battle strategy by Microsoft."

Would it then still be news?
Or mere speculation?

No, that would just be Slashdot.

>Would it then still be news?
>Or mere speculation?

It would be as much news as a Microsoft funded "study" is a study.

ECMA and ISO are both standardization organisations. ECMA is specialized on IT technology based standards as ISO is more about standards as bigger picture(they have stuff like production technic certifications). ISO standards aren't any more important than ECMA standards, they have just different goals. It's all about certifications that are mostly used as marketing. Like example, some companies demand that there suppliers must use ISO 9001 certificated production system.

That, and ISO usually covers stuff like how electronics on a board communicate with each other.

ISO is for electrical engineers, ECMA is for software engineers. At least, that's the general feeling based on what standards are published with each organization.

"As part of the submission do they allow use of the standard free of charge?"

Yes, however patent rights are not covered at all. So while you can use the technology for free, it doesn't guarentee that Microsloft won't sue you for reimplementing the technology.

This is the same strategy they used against Java to make .NYET seem more free to newbs, while still controlling the technology 100% like they did.

That said, Microsoft hasn't really ever sued a competitor, they just find other even more underhanded ways to bury them.

Yes, however patent rights are not covered at all. So while you can use the technology for free, it doesn't guarentee that Microsloft won't sue you for reimplementing the technology.

Exactly, an approach which would lend itself magnificently to FUD attacks by Microsoft proxies. Noone likes to have the sword of Domocles above their heads. And having a wolf tell you not to worry it's not going to bite you isn't very reassuring either.

Second this would probably only last for one version of Office. After that the obligatory Microsoft feature-bloat would be added to the new version and the default MSOffice format would turn from a "standard file format" into a "standards-based file format" (but now with more features! the pr will exclaim)

That said, Microsoft hasn't really ever sued a competitor, they just find other even more underhanded ways to bury them.

They sued Linspire when it was still known as "Lindows". In fact, they did it in every country where Linspire operated at the time.

They sued Linspire when it was still known as "Lindows". In fact, they did it in every country where Linspire operated at the time.

That was over trademark infringement. Historically MS has not been a major sue happy corporation when it comes to *ip* rights.

Most of the patents etc. that they pursue or more than likely to fend off the literal hordes of people who are suing them constantly.

I don't think they can sue a clean room implementation though, unless the DMCA comes into play, and then I don't think the DMCA can be applied to "open" standards.

Sure they can. If the clean room implementation use patented algorithms.

One of the many problems with software patents, is that they cover the idea that they have patented, no matter how it is implemented. It doesn't matter at all whether or not you even know that such a patent exists, since they have patented very the idea itself. If we were talking about copyright, then you would be correct.

Can anyone explain why one is better than the other?

Wow, now that's a request. It all depends on what you need. Both formats are made to be able to handle sufficiently complex documents as to make technical comparisons difficult without being an expert on both formats (I doubt that more than a handful of people could be considered such). The simplest comparisons to make right now are whether the format can be implemented by anyone on any platform (or at the very least the platform you want to run it on) and how well existing (or future) documents can be rendered in each format.

The software supporting ODF seems to be its weakest point at the moment. Even though it is cheaper (free in some cases) and can fulfill most requirements, it can't do everything that Office can. Software could become the strength of ODF since just about any program should be able to incorporate support for ODF natively without the need for additional plugins. If enough software vendors enterprise customers get behind ODF, it will seem to be the technically superior product. If MS plays there cards right, that won't happen (at least not anytime soon).

The weakest point to the Office format is that you can get software to use it from anyone as long as it's MS, and you can run it on any computer as long as MS is willing to allow it. If you don't have a problem with that (a lot of people don't), the Office format will probably seem superior because Office will also open older Office documents and be able to save them in the new format with the smallest amount of hassle. Office is also what people are used to and it has the features that people are used to.

>Office format will probably seem superior because Office will also open older Office documents and be able to save them in the new format with the smallest amount of hassle.

Absolutely NO. Office CANNOT open older versions very well. Let me say that again. MS OFFICE CANNOT OPEN OLDER VERSIONS OF MS OFFICE VERY WELL. Openoffice.org does a better job with legacy files IMO.

That may seem true for some files, but it is not true for all files. OOo does quite well with Word documents, and I'll agree that it seems to do at least as well as Office for older files. Word files aren't the only kind of files that can be created or opened with Office. People keep talking about how OOo does so much better at opening older Office files than newer versions of Office, but that only applies to Word files and some very simple Excel or Powerpoint files. OOo does a horrible job ATM with Access files.

I don't like how Office seems to break compatibility with older files, but it isn't much worse than OOo on Word files and it certainly isn't worse for every other type of Office file.

> it can't do everything that Office can
The converse is also true.

> Office will also open older Office documents
Sometimes. I've had documents that couldn't be opened by the version of Office that created them, and had to use OpenOffice.org to recover them.

> Office is also what people are used to
Office 97 / 2000 / XP maybe. I doubt they are familiar with Office 12 http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/features/2005/09-13Office... which looks significantly different.

> it can't do everything that Office can
The converse is also true.
You are certainly correct, and that is why I actually use both office suites for the time being.

> Office will also open older Office documents
Sometimes. I've had documents that couldn't be opened by the version of Office that created them, and had to use OpenOffice.org to recover them.
I have discussed this before. Office doesn't have perfect backwards compatibility, and I have been amazed at how well OOo can open some Office files. Until OOo can open Access files without creating an ugly mess though, OOo won't replace Office on my desktop. It will only supplement it.

> Office is also what people are used to
Office 97 / 2000 / XP maybe. I doubt they are familiar with Office 12 http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/features/2005/09-13Office..... which looks significantly different.
The point I was trying to make there was that people get used to features, and those features often define how people attack a problem. While the looks are quite different, the change seems to be positive since it allows features to be even more obvious and easy to use. For someone coming from MS Office, it should take less time to train them on the new Office interface where at least they'll be able to find familiar features than to train them on OOo where even similar features might behave quite differently.

I like OOo very much, and if/when it fulfills its potential, I will be very happy to completely replace Office with it. However, even OOo supporters need to realize that there are still arguments for people to stick with Office. I recommend OOo/StarOffice to home users as a free/low-cost office suite. I also recommend Writer as a superior alternative to Word in practically all cases. Most business customers' needs are fully satisfied with OOo yet, and since they're the most likely to pay for an office suite cost isn't as big of an argument. I would love to see more OOo/StarOffice use in the enterprise market, but even if it does, it will only be supplemental in many cases until it overcomes some of its hurdles.

Well, we have an open standard versus an openly documented closed standard.

There's a catch here, remember.

I believe he is looking for technical reasons.

ODF is truly portable which cannot be said about Office XML, which contains binary data.

However, I don't think ODF is superior in any technical way, nor is Office XML superior. ODF is however open and Office XML is not.

That's the only major reason why we have this "battle".

Office XML doesn't contain binary data, unless you count embedded images where it is neccesary.

Most people simply don't care about open vs. closed. That may bother you, but it's the truth.

Now, with Microsoft making this move, what is the argument FOR ODF? No longer open vs. closed.

Now, with Microsoft making this move, what is the argument FOR ODF? No longer open vs. closed.

Kind of. The MS format is to be published, so it will be open in that sense. However I think there is good reason to suspect there will be conditions attached to its use -- in particular excluding GPL software.

The article states:
As part of its standardization effort, Microsoft will change the license in order to remove "virtually all the barriers" for developers working with the file formats.
Quotation marks were in the original, and no further details are given.

I recall an earlier interview with a MS representitive on their XML file format, where (if I remember right) in response to a direct question on the matter they stated that they didn't know whether the terms of the license would allow use by GPL software. This profession of ignorance sounds implausible to me, because I think it is clear that MS is well aware of OpenOffice and GPL software in general.

I believe they have already looked into excluding the GPL from the SMB protocol (although I'm not sure where this is at now).

And I think it's reasonable to say that GPL software is the biggest current threat to MS dominance (and OpenOffice in regards to the Office Suite market). OpenOffice has a relatively small user base, but is currently enjoying media attention. It is in MS's interests to try to nip it in the bud.

So I think MS's claims of openness should be taken with a grain of salt.

But if I am wrong, don't forget that Office 97 (or at least Word 97, I'm not sure about the rest) had open formats, but Office 2000 and XP added closed extensions.

The only reason the GPL doesn't work with the Office XML formats is that Microsoft includes a provision stating that use is subject to not breaking standards support. The GPL has no such clause, therefor the GPL is incompatible with said license.

GPL-compatibility is a poor benchmark, however, as even renaming the GPL breaks compatibility.

GPL-compatibility is a poor benchmark, however, as even renaming the GPL breaks compatibility.

Not correct. GPL-compatiblity has nothing to do with the name of the license, but the contents of the license.

Office XML is incompatible with GPL due to patent issues and the prohibition of certain converters.

Creating an Office XML to ODF converter on linux is pretty much illegal, no matter the license of said converter. That's why the standard isn't open.

The OSNews sample file doesn't contain true binary data, though it does contain an embeddeed .zip file namely word/embeddings/package1.package .

Though there are several strings of hexadecimal numbers - I'll defer to the experts as to what they mean and whether they are fully documented.

Now, with Microsoft making this move, what is the argument FOR ODF? No longer open vs. closed.

It's the same argument it always was. Linux zealots bashing everything Microsoft does.

No no no.

Sappyvcv is getting it wrong.

OpenDocument is a free and open standard and openly documented.
Office XML is not. It's openly documented, but it's not a free and open standard.

This is not about bashing everything MS does. MS also does good things occasionally, as well as bad things. Just like most other companies.

The reason of ODF is:

ODF is an open standard.
Office XML is not.

Being openly documented does not equal being an open standard.

Where's the mod down option for, "This comment is inflammatory"?

Now, with Microsoft making this move, what is the argument FOR ODF? No longer open vs. closed.

Some people just don't seem to undertand that a truly open format is not the same as an open description/documentation of a closed format. I agree for most people this wouldn't really count, but this forum is not a gathering place for illiterate sheep, or is it.

Of course there is a difference, but the difference is mostly at a political level, and not very important.

Office XML DOES contain binary data, even when you don't count in embedded images where it is necessary.

Most people care about mine vs. yours (open vs. closed).

I'm not bothered about what people care about.

I'm bothered about MS lying again. Office XML is NOT open.

Office XML is a closed proprietary and thoroughly patented standard. It is openly documented, but we're not allowed to use it as such. So it's not open.

As long as an "open" standard says that I can't do this or that with my own documents, then the standard isn't open. So Office XML isn't open.

Not with Office 2003 it doesn't. I've saved many files as XML and they never had binary data.

Office XML doesn't contain binary data, unless you count embedded images where it is neccesary.

So the zip file is not binary data? That in itself breaks existing standards since the .zip format does not use ASCII encodings or other non-binary formats.

Or did you mean that since the formatting package in the zip file is composed of hexadecimal numbers instead of a string of ones and zeroes that it's not truly binary? Yeah, that's an open standard. I read all my magazines and write all correspondence in hex 'cause it's so much faster and more compact.

48414E44202864756D6240737329

So the zip file is not binary data? That in itself breaks existing standards since the .zip format does not use ASCII encodings or other non-binary formats.

So you're trying to say no one can easily read zip?
If you want to discredit the format at least support your case with something that would pose a real obstacle to implementation. The same challenge goes to most of the posters in this thread as there's a huge amount of misinformation here.

So you're trying to say no one can easily read zip?

Nope.

Remainder ignored...

we in europe do not use ascii (ASCII stands for American Standard Code for Information Interchange)

so ascii is for us a binary format

it nor even conforms to a standard.

chinese and japanase have even less use of ascii.

Can anyone explain why one is better than the other?

I doubt the MS formats will come without restrictions. But running with the theme of technical merit...

ODF is zipped XML, and going by the sample documents added to the news item, MS Office 12 formats will be zipped XML too. And the XML of both look hideous.

If you were to consider the formats purely on technical merit without any context, then I think the only reasonable answer is that both are complete shite.

That wouldn't be a fair assessment though, because they only make sense taken in context. They are both designed to fit the role of office suite file formats, with all the associated historical baggage, so that legacy files can be imported.

They do have different focuses. The ODF file format was based on the StarOffice/OpenOffice format, and tweaked by a working group including representitives from the KOffice team and Corel, whereas the MS format was designed by and for MS.

So I think it's reasonable to expect that the ODF file format will be more compatible with legacy StarOffice/OpenOffice, KOffice and WordPerfect Office documents (and perhaps StarOffice/OpenOffice in particular), whereas the MS format will be more compatible with legacy MS Office documents.

And that's probably about it for technical merit.

I would like to be able to say that ODT was far technically superior, but I think essentially the main difference is one of licensing.

How can you save an image in a text file?

Sorry, not trying to be a smarty pants; sometimes something with a little more complex formating is in order. IE: 1200 page document with illustrations. Imagine reading the text file and then having to locate image 256 in another directory. Scrolling down a page would be much easier if the image was embedded in the document.

PS: I prefer txt files; however, doc or swx do have some nice options.

It seems to me that most government bodies and businesses store important documents in the PDF format, it's supported in every non-hobby OS either by default or through a third party viewer. You really can't edit PDF files afterwards with conventional office or home software, but at least it'll let you store a document with images and advanced formatting.

The problems is that few people think upfront if what will happent with their document after that long time. The value of the document in such a distant future cannot be estimated. So either default (rich) format is durable or you're poised to loose information.

That's called your perception. There are people, apparently you included, out there that think every single action done by a large entity has an ulterior motive and bad intentions. This simply is not true.

You shouldn't automatically assume good or bad intentions.

>That's called your perception. There are people, apparently you included, out there that think every single action done by a large entity has an ulterior motive and bad intentions. This simply is not true.

Yes it is.

>You shouldn't automatically assume good or bad intentions.

Yes, you SHOULD. Hello, anyone home?

"There are people, apparently you included, out there that think every single action done by a large entity has an ulterior motive and bad intentions. This simply is not true. "

In may instances, it HAS been true.

Please compare Bill Gates & Microsoft and past practices with an outfit such as Mark Shuttleworth's with Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu.

If word of a new "change" in standards or operating practices were released from each, which would many people be (more) willing to believe & take at face value?

The people woring on Ubuntu/Kubuntu are doing worthwhile projects that benefit many of us. And there are many other orgs within Linux & OSS that regulary give back to the communities.

Big business, in my opinion, rarely, if ever, 'gives back.' Not unless there's extreme pressure to do so. Even then, they'll attempt to turn it into a money maker.

That's why I'll remain a 'Doubting Thomas.' This isn't because I'm against MS. It's because the ultimate goal of any "big business" is to separate use from our money.

My 2 cents.

What part of "every single action" did you not get? Not "many actions", but "every single action".

That's called your perception. There are people, apparently you included, out there that think every single action done by a large entity has an ulterior motive and bad intentions. This simply is not true.

By definition, most (if not all) actions imply intent. Some psychologists (especially psychoanalysts) will even argue that unconscious actions are also motivated by intent.

Mind you, the ulterior motives of corporations can be quite dumb - as an organic entity, a corporation isn't always acting in its best interest. However, the main goal of a corporation is to maximize profit, and in theory all actions it takes carry this intention to a certain degree. Whether it's good or bad depends on how its actions relate to you.

In the case of Microsoft, we can safely say that the vast majority of its actions are aimed against its main competitor, i.e. Open Source, and therefore can be construed as "bad" from a F/OSS point of view. Also, because they are a monopoly, most of their actions are done to prevent competition, so one can say that the actions are "bad" if you want to have a real viable choice of MS alternatives.

Tell me, can you say with absolute certainty that, with their new file formats "opened", OpenOffice and other alternatives will be able to use the new file formats are remained GPL'd? Because if they can't, then MS is NOT opening up their file formats at all, but rather is simply carrying on with its usual anti-competitive shenanigans.

I don't neccesarily disagree with you here. My point is that you can't automatically assume EVERY and ALL actions by MS to be evil. Yes, their end goal is almost always to maximize profit, but that's how it is for just about any company. If a company does something that benefits the customers, then why should we be bothered if they profit from it?

He's not. He's assuming their intentions to be self-serving.
In this case, the self-serving intention he's proposing is bad.

Generally speaking, when someone who controls a market does something for themselves its not going to be good for the consumer...

You see, for Microsoft to maximize profits they don't want to make the best possible product. They simply want to make the cheapest possible product which keeps people using it until whatever competition they have at the time gives up. In this product they want to use more and more powerful lock-in tools to help insure their future hold of the market.
Microsoft has little way of increasing their Office market substantially. The best thing they can do is get it to where they can run forced upgrades every 6 months (I think Quicken does forced upgrades via cutting off loved features in old versions, that's one way to do it).
Now, if you can find a motive which is beneficial to the consumer, beneficial to Microsoft, and decidedly good and logical then we'd all love to hear it. Until then, it's my opinion that this is a long term tactic in which they give us something in the short term and take it away when we all buy in. Sort of like getting no interest for 12 months only to have to pay back interest after 12 months if the debt is not already repaid.
And I do mean "sort of" like that, cause it's certainly not an exact simile.

So none of the people working on Office are trying to make the best possible product? Well then, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Several applications support OpenDocumentFormat. Do a google search on this.

It's not just OpenOffice, despite the FUD Microsoft is spreading about ODF. MS is claiming that virtually all non-MS offices are variations on OpenOffice, and therefore only OpenOffice is supporting ODF, and clearly misstating KOffice as an OpenOffice variation, which KOffice isn't.

It pretty much boils down to MS Office being the only one not to support ODF, or preparing ODF-support.

WordPerfect is being prepared for ODF, just to grab an example.

PLEASE! RTFP (Read The f--king Post) - the fact of the matter, I am talking about Microsoft Office's XML format NOT OpenOffice.org; and about their XML format and interoperaibility with OpenOffice.org etc.

Well, then please STFFIYJAFP! (State The Fcuking Format In Your Just As Fcuking Post!) :p

It wasn't obvious at all.

Office XML is being used in Office, but that's pretty much it at the moment. Try a search on Office and XML in google or here at OS News.

But so far I don't think you should others to use Office XML. The licensing terms are just to unstable atm.

But as soon as they are clear, Office XML just might gain momentum.

Hey, smart ass, who else would they be referring to in the preamble?:

Microsoft intends to submit file formats for its new Office 12 applications to the European standards body ECMA International. The company hopes this will allay concern about its level of control over document formats.

Doesn't matter much since the debate was Office XML vs. ODF.

Not at all clear what format was referred to in the post ... but it doesn't change the fact, future will show us what happens.

Halo was written by Bungie, which Microsoft bought...

You're a bunch of intellectual pygmies.

Who are you talking to?

The did not buy Mosaic, they bought spyglass which is based on Mosaic. Actually I think all browser owe their existence to Mosaic.

Actually, they didn't prohibit OEMs from doing so. Stop spreading misinformation, please.

Well, they didn't prohibit OEMs from doing so. They just forced them to do so, by saying they would either be prohibited from distributing windows, or would have to pay a much higher price.

It comes out the same way. So he isn't really spreading FUD.

It's funny how you always protect Microsoft in regard to its possible intentions. Somehow you cannot accept that Microsoft might have a bad agenda in the end user's eyes (despite the fact that mails from Microsoft proves MS has had such agendas until at least recently - and of course everybody can tell it hasn't changed).

How come you cannot look at Microsoft with non-biased eyes?

They have don good things, but oh boy, they've done bad things too (the same goes for most companies and persons - With Mother Theresa as a possible exception).

No, they did not. What they did, is offer discounts to OEMs that did not include other software. They did NOT charge OEMs that did MORE than the base price. The price remained the same to OEMs when they started including IE.

I'm not trying to protect Microsoft. I just tend to play devils advocate for them, because they tend to get attacked a lot on here. But you know for a fact that I have criticized them as well.

Of course this is a move to try to out-do ODF. That's what businesses do. People are pissed because they know Microsoft has the power to out compete even a completely open format.

Personally, I'm getting sick of you and others keep bringing it up, that I defend Microsoft. Don't like it? GET OVER IT.

No, they did not. What they did, is offer discounts to OEMs that did not include other software. They did NOT charge OEMs that did MORE than the base price. The price remained the same to OEMs when they started including IE.

It's the same as what I wrote. Offering discounts to those that did not include other software equals forcing the rest to pay a higher price than those who complied with Microsoft's (unreasonable and illegal) terms.

You never critisize the intentions of MS. You only critisize certain software elements. However, in regard to MS intentions you stay blueeyed, despite the fact that their intentions has been leaked (Halloween, anyone?).

That's what people keep bringing to your attention. You may be pissed off about it, but until you open your eyes, you will most likely have to cope with people bringing forth the evidence every single time.

You don't like it?
GET OVER IT!

I have criticized Microsoft's intentions. I'm sorry that you have not seen it. I think Steve B is one evil bastard and his intentions are usually evil. But the company is more than just him. There are tons of employees working for Microsoft that truly are trying to make great products and services.

About the discounts, you are techncially correct, but it is misleading. The base price for OEMs did not change with adding IE into the mix. The discount was an incentive, not coercion. Coercion would be raising the price from what it already was.

Well, I didn't see it, but in that case I owe you an apology. Sorry for not having seen it.

About the discounts:

I consider it coercion since the companies would be punished, even they didn't follow Microsoft's terms, simply by being put in a worse situation than competitors.

You can call it indirectly coersion if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact MS forced them to comply.

About other employees in Microsoft:

I know there are good nice people working at Microsoft. I know some of them. But what they are trying to accomplish has very little to do with what Microsoft is trying to accomplish.

But we'll see what happens with Office XML. If it becomes a truly open standard, then great. It'll give another reasonable option.

[HOWEVER: I'd prefer an extended version of RTF. A RTF-version supporting tables, images and so on would be much better in my mind.]

Indirect coercion is fine with me. Forced though? No.

RTF? Oh god, please no. RTF is so bad. Try generating an RTF file manually. Color tables in it are so messed up. You can not add a color to the color table unless that color is used in the document. Normally, this is no problem. But when you try to use RichEdit to add content on the fly, it becomes a true pain in the arse.

Here's a bit on Microsoft's intention (this is a joke, so don't get offended - laugh instead)

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990911&mode=classic

Why would I be offended? It's from 1999 when it was quite true

Well, perhaps somebody else in here reading it would be offended.

A few days ago we had a thread around (k)Ubuntu with all kinds of weird images, so who knows?

Personally I like that comedy strip. Reminds me of those days so well

BTW: Have you ever tried to resize a NTFS-partition in NT4? .. hint: DON'T

Is there a reason all the settings and styles are separate? Do we really believe that content and presentation of office documents can be that distinct, especially when each is also broken into even smaller bits? Is there is a sound reason to break everything up so extensively.

Well in the future a document format won't be just a storage format. It will be used to stream information through all kinds of processes and systems in and between business'.

The semantic meaning of the information is thus much more important than the layout. On top of that diffrent information consumers might need different formating for various reasons.

Is there a reason all the settings and styles are separate? Do we really believe that content and presentation of office documents can be that distinct, especially when each is also broken into even smaller bits? Is there is a sound reason to break everything up so extensively.

As a general coding and design tactic, content and presentation should be seperate.

This allows layout templates (presentation) to be exchanged without changing any of the content.

It also allows the target reader to pick what it will handle. In some cases, that is a subset of the design/template or an entirely different one.

As a practical and very easy to understand example of this, do the following;

* Start Firefox.
* Get Greasemonkey.
* Get Platypus.
* Restart Firefox.
* Load a cluttered web page.
* Use the 'Repair' button in Platypus.
* Fiddle around with Platypus a bit more to see other options. (Note: One option is to 'save' the dynamic layout.)

NOTE: Don't think of the theory...go try it! If you don't see it, if you don't do it, what I'm saying won't make a bit of sense to you.

Presentation seperated from content. Makes sense on the web when you see it. Makes sense to de-mangle documents and spreadsheets as well...it just doesn't happen these days. Expect it to be common place over the next few years. Like tabs in browsers, it's both obvious and practical once you see it in action.

Greasemonkey
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=748

Platypus
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=737